"I am an atheist seeking friends who are pious and who will be wisked away for the rapture that kirk cameron says is coming may 22nd 2011," said one obviously humorous ad last year. "I get to keep all your stuff because you won't need them as you will be in rapturous bliss basking in the love of the great creator. I, however, will need your stuff since I will be trapped here on earth with all the rest of the unclean, deniers, and cravens."

But most unbelievable posts concern sex. A famous find from 2008 instructed any interested woman to arrive at a certain hotel, walk into a certain room (the door would be open), and lie down naked on the bed with posterior in the air. The woman was to pick up the NES controller lying there and start up Super Mario Bros. The man who posted the ad—hiding in the bathroom until this point—said he would only come out when the game had begun.

"When you reach the end of level one, make sure to trigger the fireworks. This is vital to the entire experience. I must hear the fireworks. When level 2 begins and Mario walks into the pipe, I will penetrate you... I will continue having sex until the level ends. DO NOT take the secret level skip. If you die I will pull out and spank you until the level restarts."

And the trolls aren't just writing the posts; at least one guy makes his living by responding to classified ads in the most obnoxious possible way and posting the results.

So when one sees an ad on the site asking for "any single moms and dads around that would like to see me use your daughters panties" to masturbate with, one hopes that it falls into the same "unbelievable" category as many other posts. But what happens when the thirtysomething man writing the ad is serious?

"im DEF interested"

Baltimore County Police Detective Kevin Smith has served as a cop since 1994, starting on street patrol but taking classes in online investigation and peer-to-peer networking until, in 2008, he was assigned to the department's Crimes Against Children Unit. As part of the job, he struck up conversations with local people whose online postings suggested an unhealthy sexual interest in children.

On September 17, 2010, Smith responded to a Craigslist post titled "Your Daughters Panties - m4w - 30 (Harford County)." He told the person behind the post that he was a "40 wm [white male] stepdad with 11 yo step daughter... we r close and like to play... if interested let me no... we can work something out for her panties."

"I wasn't even really looking for panties, i was looking for someone like you to reply."

The response came quickly. That evening, lordbdub@yahoo.com wrote back with the name "Billy Warner" in the header of his e-mail. "Hey man im def interested," he told the detective, "and if you have her trained already im DEF more interested in that then in just the panties."

So—not a joke, a prank, or a shock post. This was the real deal, and Billy Warner was insistent. He sent an e-mail at 6:14pm, then another at 9:55pm, and finally a third just after midnight. "Hey man are you around or what??" he asked. "I want to get some info about your step:)"

The e-mails continued throughout the weekend. On Sunday evening, Warner wrote twice more, begging for pictures or even just descriptions of the girl. "Is mommy in on it too?" he asked.

The next week, Smith began exchanging e-mails with the man. It took only hours for Warner to send over two pictures of nude children, one of which probably qualified as child pornography.

Conversations moved onto Yahoo Instant Messenger, where Warner made clear that his ad had only been a dangler, that he hoped to find something less legal than a child's underwear. "I wasnt even really looking for panties," he said. "i was looking for someone like you to reply."

People like Detective Smith had been replying—too many, in fact—and Warner freaked. Two days after he first exchanged instant messages with Smith, Warner returned to say that someone else had contacted him online with a very similar persona to Smith's own adopted "40 year old stepfather."

"I deleted my whole hard drive cuz i thought you 2 were the same guy and were coming for me," Warner wrote when he got back in touch. But his groin overpowered his good sense, and he went back to communicating with Smith—even providing his home phone number on October 4. Smith called him; "Billy" answered. For someone with his proclivities, Warner wasn't exercising much caution.

This isn't unusual. As Steve DeBrota, an assistant US attorney in Indianapolis who has brought down major child porn sites through extensive litigation, told me recently, "Being able to find a like-minded individual easily and communicate about sexual fetishes wasn’t very easy to do in 1992, but today is trivially easy. That lowers a barrier to what are people with already low impulse control.”

163 Reader Comments

This is truly disturbing, in fact I found myself unable to read beyond the middle of the second page. Were humans always so beastly horrible, or is it just coming to light now because of the nature of the internet? Unbelievable, just freaking unbelievable.

I still haven't finished the article, but I have to stop just to say how much I fucking love dontevenreply! I remember discovering it one day and doing nothing else beside reading it the following days. That guy is a genius, a master troll.

This is truly disturbing, in fact I found myself unable to read beyond the middle of the second page. Were humans always so beastly horrible, or is it just coming to light now because of the nature of the internet? Unbelievable, just freaking unbelievable.

I dunno. Some people I've spoken with seem to think they had child porn, in particular, pretty tightly clamped down by the mid-1980s, but that the Internet has made it so easy to access that many more people are doing so today. Of couse, as I point out in this series of stories, this goes both ways--it's also easy for investigators to see much of this activity (Craigslist, P2P file transfers, etc) and to shut it down. The question is which side benefits more at the moment from the Internet's power; I don't think it's completely clear.

Of couse, as I point out in this series of stories, this goes both ways--it's also easy for investigators to see much of this activity (Craigslist, P2P file transfers, etc) and to shut it down. The question is which side benefits more at the moment from the Internet's power; I don't think it's completely clear.

Simply based on opinion, and I am willing to argue this, I'll make the case as such: I'd rather know that such systems are in place that brings out the worst in people so that we have more ways to handle them in our society. Had Billy never been given the power of the internet, the potential for him to never get caught until something physical and real happened would be higher. I don't like seeing it, but it's a necessary evil.

I think the sentence about "poor impulse control" is exactly what most of us should be cautious about. Even if Mr. Warner never did have an encounter with a girl (and even if he would have run away had he actually seen a girl with her sister), it's the poor impulse control that makes him potentially dangerous.

Do we really need more pedo alarmism articles?As they say, "Think of the children" is the root password to the US constitution.How long did it take this cop to groom the guy? Six? Eight months? After all that work they ruined the life of some weak-minded lamer who never actually hurt anyone. How many cases of rape, assault or actual creation of kiddie porn went unsolved while the cops spent their time on this guy for what amounts to thought crime?

The ultimate troll: -Post a bait classified seeking bad stuff. -Await contact from 5-0. -Send a picture of target's face, and a picture of an erect penis. -Coordinate a meeting at McDonalds for lewd acts -Get target to go to McDonalds at scheduled time to pick up lunch-???-Profit

Do we really need more pedo alarmism articles?As they say, "Think of the children" is the root password to the US constitution.How long did it take this cop to groom the guy? Six? Eight months? After all that work they ruined the life of some weak-minded lamer who never actually hurt anyone. How many cases of rape, assault or actual creation of kiddie porn went unsolved while the cops spent their time on this guy for what amounts to thought crime?

Do we really need more pedo alarmism articles?As they say, "Think of the children" is the root password to the US constitution.How long did it take this cop to groom the guy? Six? Eight months? After all that work they ruined the life of some weak-minded lamer who never actually hurt anyone. How many cases of rape, assault or actual creation of kiddie porn went unsolved while the cops spent their time on this guy for what amounts to thought crime?

I completely agree. All this time and effort to arrest a man that barely did anything. But you gotta keep those prisons full in the US. At least 90 percent full for that sweet, sweet profit.

One of the things I think the police can be better trained at is thinking like a teen girl to track their targets. It shouldn't be too hard. Just ask a middle school teacher to give a conference on it.

I'm fairly certain that child sex has been going on for a very, very long time. As late as the early 1900s, people were getting married between 14-16. You were an old maid at 20 in the 1800s and before. We know that the Middle Eastern and Far East cultures, places were children are betrothed, marriages can happen to 8 year olds.

Likewise, bestiality has always been a problem. Moses would not have bothered mentioning it in the Old Testament of the Bible if it had not been a problem with some people.

Do we really need more pedo alarmism articles?As they say, "Think of the children" is the root password to the US constitution.How long did it take this cop to groom the guy? Six? Eight months? After all that work they ruined the life of some weak-minded lamer who never actually hurt anyone. How many cases of rape, assault or actual creation of kiddie porn went unsolved while the cops spent their time on this guy for what amounts to thought crime?

I kind of agree... but not completely.On the one hand, I think you're right that this guy is not a big threat - and I think you're right that his life is essentially ruined now. There are definitely bigger fish to fry. But on the other hand, this kind of hard-line crackdown on paedophilia sends a strong signal that paedophilia is not acceptable in our society. Billy Warner is apparently cursed with both a sexual attraction to prepubescent girls, and poor impulse control. I think that the pervasive fear of being caught is probably the main thing that prevents people with these problems from acting out in the first place. I'm sure that there are a lot of people like Billy who would be curious and interested enough to seek out sexual encounters with children; but who decide against it because apparently these encounters are just as likely to be a trap as they are to be legit.

Billy's punishment is not for 'justice', but rather just a deterrent.

(I personally don't really care much about 'justice'. In most cases there is nothing law enforcement can ever do to correct the past. People can't be unraped, or unmurdered or anything like that. The sole purpose of law enforcement, in my view, is to ensure a better future. So punishment as a deterrent to potential future offenders is probably the most important part of law enforcement.)

Do we really need more pedo alarmism articles?As they say, "Think of the children" is the root password to the US constitution.How long did it take this cop to groom the guy? Six? Eight months? After all that work they ruined the life of some weak-minded lamer who never actually hurt anyone. How many cases of rape, assault or actual creation of kiddie porn went unsolved while the cops spent their time on this guy for what amounts to thought crime?

[I think that the pervasive fear of being caught is probably the main thing that prevents people with these problems from acting out in the first place. I'm sure that there are a lot of people like Billy who would be curious and interested enough to seek out sexual encounters with children; but who decide against it because apparently these encounters are just as likely to be a trap as they are to be legit.

I think that is an awfully big assumption. Certainly an easy one to make, but it stands in direct contrast to the idea that these guys suffer from poor impluse control. Pretty much by definition increased risk doesn't deter those with poor impluse control. Much like the way that the death penalty has basically no deterrant effect for murderers.

I think it is much more likely that reason guys like Billy don't actually succeed in abusing a kid is because no sane person would fall for their tricks. He himself admitted to getting basically no bites (except, apparently, cops) with all of his schemes. Free babysitting by a creeper? Yeah, right....

BTW, somewhere over 90% of child sexual abuse is committed by family members and friends of the family (coaches, priets, etc). Some rando on the net is pretty much at the very bottom of the list of realistic threats.

I am amazed at how long it took for the cops to bring him in. He practically gave them his home address and kiddy porn in the first couple of days.

If anything his behavior seems like a cry for help. He was posting cop bait constantly for months using his real name trying to get himself arrested. Eventually when it became clear that they weren't going to bust down his door to arrest him, he finally just walked into the obvious trap.

[I think that the pervasive fear of being caught is probably the main thing that prevents people with these problems from acting out in the first place. I'm sure that there are a lot of people like Billy who would be curious and interested enough to seek out sexual encounters with children; but who decide against it because apparently these encounters are just as likely to be a trap as they are to be legit.

I think that is an awfully big assumption. Certainly an easy one to make, but it stands in direct contrast to the idea that these guys suffer from poor impluse control. Pretty much by definition increased risk doesn't deter those with poor impluse control. Much like the way that the death penalty has basically no deterrant effect for murderers.

I think it is much more likely that reason guys like Billy don't actually succeed in abusing a kid is because no sane person would fall for their tricks. He himself admitted to getting basically no bites (except, apparently, cops) with all of his schemes. Free babysitting by a creeper? Yeah, right....

BTW, somewhere over 90% of child sexual abuse is committed by family members and friends of the family (coaches, priets, etc). Some rando on the net is pretty much at the very bottom of the list of realistic threats.

You're right that I have no idea how often these kinds of deterrents prevent people from offending; but I do know that the increased risk certainly still does help deter people with poor impulse control. The main thing is someone like Billy has to go through several steps to get to his 'goal'; and if there is a strong element of fear the whole time, then he'd be less likely to proceed. This Ars article mentions a couple of times when Billy is overcome with fear and thus backs away from the whole thing.

On the other hand, I think your point about most sexual abuse being committed by family members is a strong one. I don't think this anti-Billy stuff really helps block that kind of abuse.

I think the death penalty is an unrelated issue. The death penalty is a poor deterrent for people who don't mind dying. (Maybe they are suicidal, or they want martyrdom, or something like that.)

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

Ehh, no. Not in any Western civilisations at least. The definition of a child is written into law, which is (or attempts to be) a codified set of rules which reflect the morals of majority of citizens in that country. Don't like it, you can try to change the laws or move to a country more amenable to your thoughts on the matter. It seems quite a few Islamic countries agree with you.

From the article wrote:

On January 13, 2011, he learned his fate: 120 months in a federal prison. The judge left him free until March, when he had to turn himself in to the Bureau of Prisons and begin a new life for the next decade. Once he gets out, he will remain a registered sex offender.

And then what, I wonder. The punishment doesn't seem to do much to resolve the underlying issues here. The attorney in the article suggested he cover up anything which could hint at mental illness to avoid being committed to a mental health institute, but isn't that the best place for a paedophile?

I'm fairly certain that child sex has been going on for a very, very long time. As late as the early 1900s, people were getting married between 14-16. You were an old maid at 20 in the 1800s and before. We know that the Middle Eastern and Far East cultures, places were children are betrothed, marriages can happen to 8 year olds.

Beyond marriage, one case that most people don't know about is Horatio Alger. Surprisingly (not really), the author famous today for writing books about young boys who succeed under the tutelage of older men was a minister until he was caught having sexual relations with boys, at which point he was kicked out of the church and allowed to escape prosecution under the condition that he leave town and never return: http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles ... gerjr.html

I am amazed at how long it took for the cops to bring him in. He practically gave them his home address and kiddy porn in the first couple of days.

If anything his behavior seems like a cry for help. He was posting cop bait constantly for months using his real name trying to get himself arrested. Eventually when it became clear that they weren't going to bust down his door to arrest him, he finally just walked into the obvious trap.

I think there's as much chance for this guy to really be as much of an idiot as the article makes him out to be as not. There's a strong benefit to ongoing and future investigations if all the info that gets publicly disclosed about cases like this paint the perp as a total buffoon, especially if that leads interested future perps to feel cocky and overconfident that they'd never be that stupid or they'd never fall for that.

If you do investigations like this for a living, you wouldn't want any details about how you coax info out of someone, or lead them towards making bolder statements, or trick them into face-to-face meetups in public so you can nab them to be public. If you tell everyone your tricks they stop being as effective, and you can't use them any more. If this guy really was that easy to crack, you hit a goldmine, though.

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

First off not according to u.s. law. Yes there are different categories in the psych world (pedophiles, hebephiles, ephebophiles), but this guy was most certainly a pedophile, he said the perfect age was 8-9. So though he also admitted to being with a 13 year old (hebephile or ephebophile depending on the stage of development) he obviously liked them younger. I'm not sure how anyone can have a problem with this, the guy showed up to meet up with 2 young girls. This isn't just trading pictures (which I find just as morally reprehensible) which brought all sorts of people out to defend the picture traders. This guy was taking actions to meet with children.

As for people complaining that most abuse cases happen from a family member or friend of the family, this is true for murders as well. But that doesn't mean they should stop trying to stop serial killers, or not tell women to be careful walking home alone late at night. Just because its less common doesn't make the act any easier on the victim. The reason this is such a hot button issue is because its been decided as a society that kids are a protected class of citizen (rightfully so IMO), they need to be protected and watched over because they are not capable of doing it themselves yet. So people see it as the worst type of crime, hurting someone that can't protect themselves or fight back.

There are definitely bigger fish to fry. But on the other hand, this kind of hard-line crackdown on paedophilia sends a strong signal that paedophilia is not acceptable in our society.

karadoc wrote:

Raptor Apocalypse wrote:

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

I wouldn't advise you to try that argument as a legal defence...

amadan wrote:

Raptor Apocalypse wrote:

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

Ehh, no. Not in any Western civilisations at least. The definition of a child is written into law, which is (or attempts to be) a codified set of rules which reflect the morals of majority of citizens in that country. Don't like it, you can try to change the laws or

I find it unfortunate that the term is being popularly misused, both since it hinders a real understanding of the actual condition, and because the popular misuse of the term lumps together some normative sexuality with non-normative sexuality based on vagaries of arbitrary legal jurisdiction. For example, sexual contact involving a mid-to-late teenager might be perfectly legal in one state but not in a neighboring state; is someone therefore a pedophile on one side of the state line but not the other?

Why not simplify things and make everything easier--let's use words to mean what they actually do mean, instead of abusing and diluting them. A "pedophile" is someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children, and it refers to the attraction and not to any activity. There are doubtless many pedophiles who never actually have inappropriate contact with children; the word refers to the attraction, not to actions, just as you don't actually have to have sex to be a heterosexual or a homosexual. The equivalent term for sexual attraction to young adolescents is "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" depending on age preference. "Child molester" is the proper term for someone who actually has sexual contact with a child. Someone who has sexual contact with an adolescent teenager is neither a pedophile nor a child molester; if it's not illegal in a given jurisdiction there's no special term for it, though some might argue he's a "pervert" if they argue it's non-normative. And then, someone who has sex with an adolescent teenager in a jurisdiction where it's illegal is a "statutory rapist."

This might sound like pointless nitpicking, but words have power and I think diluting and abusing them has negative consequences. For example, when we start calling "statutory rapists" "pedophiles" we're in danger of lumping even 18-year-old high school kids who have sex with 17-year-old classmates into a category where they clearly don't belong (not that that should even be statutory rape, but sadly in some jurisdictions it is). When we use the term "pedophile" to mean "child molester" we increase stigma and make it less likely for people who have the actual disorder to try to get mental health help and support which may help them avoid becoming actual child molesters. Words are important. There's no worthwhile reason not to use them accurately.

SergeiEsenin, I was conscious of that definition when I used the word 'pedophile'. Recall that in the article, Billy is quoted as saying "8 or 9 lol thats my dream age". I think that justifies calling him a pedophile.

Each time and article comes across with this topic I am amazed, no shocked, at how many people rush to the defense of the "bad men". What this man did was reprehensible, and if you're defending him I cant imagine what kind of person you must be. Maybe law enforcement should spend some time looking at the posters here too.

SergeiEsenin, I was conscious of that definition when I used the word 'pedophile'. Recall that in the article, Billy is quoted as saying "8 or 9 lol thats my dream age". I think that justifies calling him a pedophile.

He is a pedophile, but you said there should be a "hard-line crackdown on paedophilia." Why would we have a hard-line crackdown on a mental disorder? Should we have a hard-line crackdown on schizophrenia too? We can however have a hard-line crackdown on child sex abuse, which I'd definitely support.

I just think it's important to use terms like "pedophilia" correctly, all the more so given the sensitivities surrounding these issues. When we misuse these words we muddy these issues, for example by putting the statutory rape of a teenager by another teenager into the same category as the sexual abuse of a 12-year-old by a 30-year-old.

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

You should immediately ring the FBI and tell them that. I'm sure they will be convinced and change their evil ways.

As I mentioned above, anyone using the word "pedophile" to mean "statutory rapist" or even "child molester" is using it wrong. Those are three very different terms with three very different definitions. Let's quote the expert, Chris Hansen of To Catch a Predator, "Pedophiles have a very specific definition: people who are interested in prepubescent sex." [Puts on language-geek cap...] Or at least people interested in sex with prepubescents, rather than in sex which has itself not undergone puberty yet. [Takes off language-geek cap...]

Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child" and any male attracted to said female is by definition not a "pedophile"

You should immediately ring the FBI and tell them that. I'm sure they will be convinced and change their evil ways.

As I mentioned above, anyone using the word "pedophile" to mean "statutory rapist" or even "child molester" is using it wrong. Those are three very different terms with three very different definitions. Let's quote the expert, Chris Hansen of To Catch a Predator, "Pedophiles have a very specific definition: people who are interested in prepubescent sex." [Puts on language-geek cap...] Or at least people interested in sex with prepubescents, rather than in sex which has itself not undergone puberty yet. [Takes off language-geek cap...]

I was referring to the first part of his sentence 'Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child"'. The definition of what is "paedophile" really doesn't matter that much in the above statement because ost countries, and certainly US, has a specific legal age limit on who is considered a child.

I was referring to the first part of his sentence 'Any female old enough to give birth is by definition not a "child"'. The definition of what is "paedophile" really doesn't matter that much in the above statement because ost countries, and certainly US, has a specific legal age limit on who is considered a child.

He could also be considered correct biologically, though as you point out not correct legally. Words, gotta love 'em.

Personally, I like the term "adolescent" as it sidesteps the vagaries of legal jurisdictions and means the same thing everywhere, and it's much more specific than "child." Calling a 17-year-old a "child" may be legally correct, but it's not fully culturally correct and in practical terms it's insulting to the teenager. When I was a teenager I know there's little I bristled at more than being called a child and therefore lumped in with 7-year-olds.